Differences between transparency and disclosure.

Understanding when disclosure satisfies the notion of transparency assists in adequately analyzing efforts of public officials to increase transparency by demanding more disclosure.

In the middle of town, in a tiny room sits a person watching a screen for an important message which they should immediately give to the general public. In designing the room public officials considered two possibilities for achieving the end goal of informing the public as to the contents of the message.
In a first option the watch-person, upon seeing the message, should leave their seat, exit the room, and personally inform the public of the message's contents.
In a second option officials install a window behind the watch-person, allowing passers by to look in to the room and read the message for themselves, and when a message appears the watch-person should also personally inform the public.

Both options satisfy the notion of disclosure, with the same possible effect of important information achieving public dissemination, but only the second option provides transparency.

In option 1 we cannot verify the extent to which the message delivered matches the contents on the computer screen. The public relies on the watch-person. but we can quickly develop criticisms on the efficacy in such a practice. What if our watch-person's brain jumbles words, resulting in their misunderstanding the message and delivering it inaccurately; what if a neighboring town bribed the watch-person to either fail to deliver the message or deliver a false message?

Let me more essentially compare the important difference between the options.

Option 1. Someone may voluntarily provide information which the public cannot verify
Option 2. Someone may voluntarily provide information which the public can verify regardless of disclosure

To achieve transparency requires all parties in question have verifiable access to necessary information. Any time the news reports incorrectly they disclose falsities. How inconvenient then that they rarely provide, in their reporting, access to the evidence they use to proclaim facts. Could a student turn in a research paper without properly presented citations?

In a society which proclaims the virtue of transparency, I wonder why we practice imperfect disclosure rather than necessitating any actual transparency. Technology, particularly software, renders trivial the solutions to this transparency problem.  The problem must lie somewhere else.  One need only watch a commission meeting on purported transparency legislation to clearly see that Commissioners don't want transparency, or that they value their privileges more than their responsibilities.

Transparency in government necessitates public access to information despite the voluntary participation of the bodies or individuals involved.

Any questions?

Why I support Levine-Cava's campaign fundraising transparency ordinance!

(the following is still a draft, and should be edited for accuracy and clarity)


I begin with the short and sweet of it.

County Commissioner Daniella Levine-Cava's proposed ordinance to increase campaign fundraising transparency is a step in the right direction. There is little burden in a simple disclosure in campaign finance reports accounting for when candidates and officials raise funds on behalf of political organizations. Any notion that politicians should spend their time raising money, but that it's a burden to do so in the light of public view calls in to question the purpose of  public service. What's more, I question the integrity of any politician who opposes this legislation because they think it would burden them. Here's looking at Barbara Jordan, and others on the commission.

I previously criticized the proposal in hopes that it could promote public discourse about what transparency really means in our times, but unfortunately none of the county commissioners I reached out to took my words to heart, and instead hide behind ennui. Laziness. In that regards I will clarify my criticisms so that people understand I do not oppose this ordinance, as I find nothing egregious about it.

While I still hope for more discussion on the topic, I don't see a need to continue criticizing this particular effort, as my criticisms receive no actual conscious attention. I prefer a move in the right direction, than to stifle progress over knit-picking. I still think find critique valid and important to the over-all issue of transparency in government, but future ordinances can address this--the proposal in no way limits possible increases of transparency in the future, which is precisely what establishment fears. Don't buy the disingenuous suggestion this ordinance would burden politicians. Even if it does, they accept that burden as servants of the public. They serve special interests, or their own, when they oppose transparency.

Reaching out to better understand the future of campaign finance.

Only time will tell if the proposed ordinance has actual positive effect on electioneering in Miami-Dade County. While I appreciate the responsiveness of the commissioner's COO, I wait for the final language to personally conclude on the issue.

It began with a letter I wrote regarding campaign finance reform and ended with a promise from the Levine-Cava's COO Adele Valencia promising to address some of my concerns.

Bitcoin self-satisfied headlines

In an embarrassing use of public resources Miami-Dade County Police entrap a naive entrepreneur in a complex legal bait-and-switch which indentures him to police for an unreported time-period. Local channel 7 shares deceptively edited police video showing an undercover officer explaining to Pascal Reid his expectation to purchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin. Another cut from the video shows the two men at a computer, when the front door flies open and another officer rushes in with a gun pointing directly at the unarmed, but now shocked Pascal. The reporters fail to substantiate their claim that the undercover officer described an identity theft scheme with Pascal, and elicited his help with laundering money acquired from the scheme.
This has link bait all over it, with our corrupt Katherine Fernandez Rundle claiming it's the first arrest of it's kind. It's certainly not the first instance of someone in South Florida acting as an "Unauthorized Money Transmitter, " simply the first time the State Attorney bothered to prosecute anyone for it, and it was a sting operation, not even an actual instance of organic criminal behavior.

One wonders how much actual unauthorized money transmission goes on which has not been prosecuted.

Why I called Javier Ortiz absurd, and other comments for local 880am's The Gray Zone

Awake and with little to do this morning I noticed on twitter that Miami-Dade Commissioner Daniella Levine Cava would be speaking on a local business/politics/talk radio station 880am The Biz's weekday morning program The Gray Zone. She didn't specify what she'd talk about, but as an upstart who deposed a well-connected incumbent I have interest in what she says.

Surfside to North Miami Beach swap?

The Dezerland Hotel (and other titles at times) sold for $65M according ot exMiami on December 18th while five days later on the 23rd  they report that Dezer has acquired and plans to build "600 Units At Intracoastal Mall In North Miami Beach," the purchase of which cost some LLC of his $63.5M. Seems like a reasonable pivot considering how next to nothing has been done with the throw-back hotel property, but Dezer has big plans for the Intracoastal, including a luxury dinner movie theater.

Seems like a big step up. Just a stones throw away, the Intracoastal mall economically driven by budget brands like "Old Navy" and "Winn-Dixie" will be getting a Sunny Isles facelift to match some of its potential.

Mall Expansion Update 5.13

After a long period of inactivity I decided this morning to look for something new regarding the Aventura Mall expansion proposal. Rumors of a food court rennovated initially interested me due to its adgacency with the mall's only Miami-Dade Transit bus stop. Confirmation came months after the initial rumor via Miami Today article breaking the expansion. (I just spend 15 minutes trying to guess how Miami Today came out with the story. Maybe they read monthly agendas?)
With new scope to the matter further research became necessary to understand the fate of the mall bus stop. Miami-Dade Transit had nothing to say on the matter, instead claiming total ignorance, however what makes the situation so interesting is that the ordinance change the mall requires to expand their lot coverage to 44% (current max 40%) necessitates the very transit facility which serves as footnote in most articles on the story. Certainly a millions dollars expansion is a big deal, but in Miami those go for a dime a dozen. The guts of the story involve Aventura Mall Ventures possible manipulating city ordinances meant to maintain benefit the public.
From the proposal to the city:

The request is a policy decision as to whether the continued low height of the mall building and the construction of a centralized multi-modal transit facility on the ground
floor of a new parking structure is a benefit to the community that warrants the
requested increase in lot coverage.

(Strange formatting mine)
How can Aventura Mall Ventures possibly meet a standard warranting the "requested increase" if they are not even in communication with local transit authorities?
That line of thinking raises all sorts of questions as to whether Aventura Mall is a Community Business, as is the designation they have. What kind of community does Aventura Mall cultivate and perpetuate?

I won't address most of the questions any time soon. At this time I focus on mall expansion and what's to become of the bus stop. While the potential for a well designed transit facility excites me, the reality of transit facilities in this area paint a depressing likelihood.
More to come?
Hopefully soon. No one else has written about it since, it seems!